Total Posts:186|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism and the Burden of Proof

Ameliamk1
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2014 9:28:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The question has come up a lot recently of whether atheism is a positive statement that accordingly requires evidence to support. More accurately, it has been accused. If unable to provide evidence, the atheistic position is "incoherent", and is untenable.

So I would like to submit a formal response. The primary dispensement of BOP is based on what has already been established. There are cases where a negative position could be burdened with the BOP. For example, a theist offered a situation the other day where one would say "it is not raining", and thus be expected to prove this. The most pressing issue with this is that to prove it is not raining, one would merely have to look outside and observe that there was no rain; however, if water was coming down from the clouds, the statement would be false.

Whether something exists is quite different. The person who claims it is not raining holds as much BOP as the opposing position because it is accepted, established, and scientifically and empirically proven that rain exists, and it does fall from the clouds.

However, God is not observable in the same way. Because His existence was never proven in the first place, it is not therefore the imperative of atheists to disprove the existence of something that was never known to be there. To provide another example, one could say "deer don't exist", and the onus would be on them to say why not because deer are fully understood to exist, a fact that goes un-denied.

If someone were to ask whether unicorns walk the earth, hopefully everyone would say no. Why? Because that would be observable, and has yet to be seen. If unicorns occupy the realms of reality, then someone needs to get on that. Meanwhile, the example of denying that aliens exist is not in the same realm of thought. Because we as a species are incapable of seeing or proving aliens as of yet, saying they don't exist is not an intellectually valid statement.

Let me get to the point: God, who apparently loves us so much and centered creation around us, should be observable, and scientifically provable, and his apparent common interventions should be easily viewed. When this is the case, as it is with religion, lack of evidence can be evidence to the contrary; where evidence should be, there is none. God was never established, never observed in the realm where he would be expected to be seen. That is why theists hold the burden of proof, and atheists do not.

Feel free to respond or rebut below.
PureX
Posts: 1,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 9:39:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Both the primary and the counter propositions carry the burden of proof. Otherwise, there is no point to engage in the exercise of debate.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 9:44:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 9:39:59 AM, PureX wrote:
Both the primary and the counter propositions carry the burden of proof. Otherwise, there is no point to engage in the exercise of debate.

There are, never have been and never will be something very closely fitting what people would recognise as faeries anywhere in the entire physical and temporal span of the universe. Also these faeries can time-travel.

To show they do exist, all you need to do is find one. To prove they don't, all you need to do is present a simultaneous study of the entire span of the universe in at least 4 dimensions that shows they aren't any. In other words, you only need to be omniscient and omnipresent and you must ensure that your audience are capable of understanding and processing all the information within a finite amount of time and without forgetting any of it.

Now go and prove that there aren't any.
PureX
Posts: 1,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 10:14:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 9:44:22 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/4/2014 9:39:59 AM, PureX wrote:
Both the primary and the counter propositions carry the burden of proof. Otherwise, there is no point to engage in the exercise of debate.

There are, never have been and never will be something very closely fitting what people would recognise as faeries anywhere in the entire physical and temporal span of the universe. Also these faeries can time-travel.

To show they do exist, all you need to do is find one. To prove they don't, all you need to do is present a simultaneous study of the entire span of the universe in at least 4 dimensions that shows they aren't any. In other words, you only need to be omniscient and omnipresent and you must ensure that your audience are capable of understanding and processing all the information within a finite amount of time and without forgetting any of it.

Now go and prove that there aren't any.

The thing is, no one is seriously proposing this, because if they were, they would be ignored. And for good reason.

When you want to chat seriously about debate, it's purpose, and why both sides bear the burden of proof, let me know.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 10:19:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 10:14:25 AM, PureX wrote:
At 6/4/2014 9:44:22 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/4/2014 9:39:59 AM, PureX wrote:
Both the primary and the counter propositions carry the burden of proof. Otherwise, there is no point to engage in the exercise of debate.

There are, never have been and never will be something very closely fitting what people would recognise as faeries anywhere in the entire physical and temporal span of the universe. Also these faeries can time-travel.

To show they do exist, all you need to do is find one. To prove they don't, all you need to do is present a simultaneous study of the entire span of the universe in at least 4 dimensions that shows they aren't any. In other words, you only need to be omniscient and omnipresent and you must ensure that your audience are capable of understanding and processing all the information within a finite amount of time and without forgetting any of it.

Now go and prove that there aren't any.

The thing is, no one is seriously proposing this, because if they were, they would be ignored. And for good reason.

When you want to chat seriously about debate, it's purpose, and why both sides bear the burden of proof, let me know.

But they do propose an intangible transcendent supernatural entity. So now the search has to be extended beyond time and space as well.

Thanks for walking right into that one. I didn't think it'd be quite so easy.
Ameliamk1
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 10:49:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 9:44:22 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/4/2014 9:39:59 AM, PureX wrote:
Both the primary and the counter propositions carry the burden of proof. Otherwise, there is no point to engage in the exercise of debate.

There are, never have been and never will be something very closely fitting what people would recognise as faeries anywhere in the entire physical and temporal span of the universe. Also these faeries can time-travel.

To show they do exist, all you need to do is find one. To prove they don't, all you need to do is present a simultaneous study of the entire span of the universe in at least 4 dimensions that shows they aren't any. In other words, you only need to be omniscient and omnipresent and you must ensure that your audience are capable of understanding and processing all the information within a finite amount of time and without forgetting any of it.

Now go and prove that there aren't any.

Again, the problem with this example is God should be perfectly observable, as we are his sole intelligent creation, and according to the holy book he performs miracles regularly, and reveals himself to people, often in large groups. God should be observable, but is nowhere to be seen. The faeries on the other hand could be anywhere; because they have not been proven in our small observable realm, I would be inclined to disbelieve, their apparent realm of existence is very different from ours.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 11:24:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 10:14:25 AM, PureX wrote:
At 6/4/2014 9:44:22 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/4/2014 9:39:59 AM, PureX wrote:
Both the primary and the counter propositions carry the burden of proof. Otherwise, there is no point to engage in the exercise of debate.

There are, never have been and never will be something very closely fitting what people would recognise as faeries anywhere in the entire physical and temporal span of the universe. Also these faeries can time-travel.

To show they do exist, all you need to do is find one. To prove they don't, all you need to do is present a simultaneous study of the entire span of the universe in at least 4 dimensions that shows they aren't any. In other words, you only need to be omniscient and omnipresent and you must ensure that your audience are capable of understanding and processing all the information within a finite amount of time and without forgetting any of it.

Now go and prove that there aren't any.

The thing is, no one is seriously proposing this, because if they were, they would be ignored. And for good reason.

When you want to chat seriously about debate, it's purpose, and why both sides bear the burden of proof, let me know.

I actually once did a serious debate for the existance of unicorns and also the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which is a deity which created the universe (link below).

I would love to see how you would disprove this claim, especially given it is mutually exclusive to the God you believe in.

http://www.debate.org...
PureX
Posts: 1,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 12:54:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 10:19:11 AM, Graincruncher wrote:

But they do propose an intangible transcendent supernatural entity. So now the search has to be extended beyond time and space as well.

Thanks for walking right into that one. I didn't think it'd be quite so easy.

When you're just playing with yourself, it's really easy to 'win'.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 12:59:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 12:54:25 PM, PureX wrote:
At 6/4/2014 10:19:11 AM, Graincruncher wrote:

But they do propose an intangible transcendent supernatural entity. So now the search has to be extended beyond time and space as well.

Thanks for walking right into that one. I didn't think it'd be quite so easy.

When you're just playing with yourself, it's really easy to 'win'.

Are you honestly saying you don't see how what I just said relates to your comments?
PureX
Posts: 1,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 1:08:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 11:24:51 AM, Envisage wrote:

I actually once did a serious debate for the existance of unicorns and also the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which is a deity which created the universe (link below).

I would love to see how you would disprove this claim, especially given it is mutually exclusive to the God you believe in.

I wouldn't have to disprove it because it can't be reasonably asserted. At least not as it's being eluded to, here.

If it could be reasonably asserted it could be reasonably rebutted.

Also, you would need to clarify the assertion. Are you asserting deity? Or a particular conceptualization of deity? What is the nature and character of the deity you are asserting? And what, exactly, are you asserting about this deity?

If you don't even know what you're asserting, then how could anyone possibly rebut?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 1:19:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 1:08:30 PM, PureX wrote:
At 6/4/2014 11:24:51 AM, Envisage wrote:

I actually once did a serious debate for the existance of unicorns and also the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which is a deity which created the universe (link below).

I would love to see how you would disprove this claim, especially given it is mutually exclusive to the God you believe in.

I wouldn't have to disprove it because it can't be reasonably asserted. At least not as it's being eluded to, here.

I asserted it just fine in the debate I think. And even provided deductive arguments for it. Read it (I was sswdwm). In either case how reasonably something is asserted has nothing to do with burden of proof, as you are claiming that atheists have a burden of proof with respect to god.

If it could be reasonably asserted it could be reasonably rebutted.

Rebutting is not the point, the point is can you satisfy a burden of proof to disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn. If not, then why should a-pink unicorn it's hold anymore burden of proof than atheists do with respect to god?

Also, you would need to clarify the assertion. Are you asserting deity? Or a particular conceptualization of deity? What is the nature and character of the deity you are asserting? And what, exactly, are you asserting about this deity?

Invisible Pink Unicorn, the immaterial creator of the universe. She is omnipotent, omniscient and personal. She also appears intermittently throughout the cosmos (I gave a photo in the debate).

If you don't even know what you're asserting, then how could anyone possibly rebut?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 1:21:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 1:08:30 PM, PureX wrote:
I wouldn't have to disprove it because it can't be reasonably asserted. At least not as it's being eluded to, here.

You do realise this is about the form of the claim, not the content, right? "Reasonable assertion" is weasel wording for "I think supernatural claims are more reasonable than unlikely natural ones".

If it could be reasonably asserted it could be reasonably rebutted.

No, it's about what would be required in order to do it, on a conceptual, procedural level. Not how 'reasonable' it is, but how possible it is.

Also, you would need to clarify the assertion. Are you asserting deity? Or a particular conceptualization of deity? What is the nature and character of the deity you are asserting? And what, exactly, are you asserting about this deity?

Whichever particular deity is being asserted at any given time. Since you're now asking the person who disagrees with the assertion to define that which is asserted, I can only assume you've totally lost your mind.

If you don't even know what you're asserting, then how could anyone possibly rebut?

It is painfully clear that you don't understand why there's a problem with the following situation:

Person A makes a claim that they could support by providing a piece of information, while person B would be required to provide an entire account of the entire universe and beyond in order to disprove it. Person A thinks it reasonable for person B to carry a burden of proof under these impossible conditions, whilst not themselves meeting their own burden of proof.

Which also makes it painfully clear that you're either mad, stupid or not interested in honest discussion of the subject.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 1:33:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Believe it or not, like it or not, negative claims require just as much evidence as positive ones. Although it is reasonable not to believe in fairies, to claim that there are none requires evidence. If none can be provided, too bad. All that means is that you cannot prove that there are no fairies, and therefore the claim "there are no fairies" is without justification. Degrees of confirmation =/= truth. BOP has nothing whatsoever to do with truth.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 1:49:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 9:28:40 PM, Ameliamk1 wrote:


Let me get to the point: God, who apparently loves us so much and centered creation around us, should be observable, and scientifically provable, and his apparent common interventions should be easily viewed. When this is the case, as it is with religion, lack of evidence can be evidence to the contrary; where evidence should be, there is none.

These are assumptions. You are basing a claim off of what you think "fits". But this lacks anything resembling an explicit justification. You have not met your burden of proof i.e. you have not proven anything.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 2:35:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 1:33:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Believe it or not, like it or not, negative claims require just as much evidence as positive ones. Although it is reasonable not to believe in fairies, to claim that there are none requires evidence. If none can be provided, too bad. All that means is that you cannot prove that there are no fairies, and therefore the claim "there are no fairies" is without justification. Degrees of confirmation =/= truth. BOP has nothing whatsoever to do with truth.

And if it is reasonable not to believe in fairies then it is reasonable to hold the position "I do not believe the statement that fairies exist is a true one".
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 3:46:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 2:35:53 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/4/2014 1:33:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Believe it or not, like it or not, negative claims require just as much evidence as positive ones. Although it is reasonable not to believe in fairies, to claim that there are none requires evidence. If none can be provided, too bad. All that means is that you cannot prove that there are no fairies, and therefore the claim "there are no fairies" is without justification. Degrees of confirmation =/= truth. BOP has nothing whatsoever to do with truth.

And if it is reasonable not to believe in fairies then it is reasonable to hold the position "I do not believe the statement that fairies exist is a true one".

Yes.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 6:04:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A negative claim puts a burden of proof just like a positive claim.

Fairies can be falsified via. Modus tollens (Denying the consequence), which is more or less similar to the scientific method:

1- If fairies exist, it is fairly (pun may or may not be intended) likely that there would be reasonably clear evidence depicting their existence (genuine, distinguishable from bugs, captured in a jar, etc...).
2- There are no clear evidence depicting their existence.
c: Fairies probably do not exist.

So the question is: What are you looking for in God?
God is supposed to be existence before the existence of matter, so what material evidence do you require?
Scientism is a self-refuting position. Applied empirical science is not the only way to reach truths, there is for example math, history, philosophy and logic.

The issue of God is not about investigating a material cause in which science specialize in. It is an issue of an efficient cause.
If someone is boiling water stove, we can give a material explanation about neurons, muscles, chemical reaction and ignition of gas, particles getting excited, etc... Or we can simply explain by: "The man wants to make tea". Both explanations are accurate and work together.

So the issue is about investigating which option makes more sense: The efficient cause being intelligent or random.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 9:14:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 6:04:43 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
A negative claim puts a burden of proof just like a positive claim.

Fairies can be falsified via. Modus tollens (Denying the consequence), which is more or less similar to the scientific method:

1- If fairies exist, it is fairly (pun may or may not be intended) likely that there would be reasonably clear evidence depicting their existence (genuine, distinguishable from bugs, captured in a jar, etc...).
2- There are no clear evidence depicting their existence.
c: Fairies probably do not exist.

That is not modus tollens.
Your If-Then statement invokes probability. If A, then p chance of B.
But the fact that we haven't found evidence does not negate that there is still a p chance of B, we just made simply be outside that chance. As such, we can draw no conclusion about A, at least not using modus tollens.

You'd be better of trying for a Bayesian analysis.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 10:59:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 9:14:21 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/5/2014 6:04:43 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
A negative claim puts a burden of proof just like a positive claim.

Fairies can be falsified via. Modus tollens (Denying the consequence), which is more or less similar to the scientific method:

1- If fairies exist, it is fairly (pun may or may not be intended) likely that there would be reasonably clear evidence depicting their existence (genuine, distinguishable from bugs, captured in a jar, etc...).
2- There are no clear evidence depicting their existence.
c: Fairies probably do not exist.

That is not modus tollens.
Your If-Then statement invokes probability. If A, then p chance of B.
But the fact that we haven't found evidence does not negate that there is still a p chance of B, we just made simply be outside that chance. As such, we can draw no conclusion about A, at least not using modus tollens.

You'd be better of trying for a Bayesian analysis.

Modus tollens is the opposite of affirming the consequence:

If p, then q
is q
therefore, p

We are talking about inductive logic that depends on human senses and subjectivity. Of course it can't absolutely prove something. However, the probability spoken about allows enough accuracy for us to assume it to be true until further evidence.

That is why scientific hypothesis requires many replications in order to increase the probability of the accuracy before it becomes a theory in which we assume it to be true.
PureX
Posts: 1,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 11:03:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 1:21:49 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/4/2014 1:08:30 PM, PureX wrote:
I wouldn't have to disprove it because it can't be reasonably asserted. At least not as it's being eluded to, here.

You do realise this is about the form of the claim, not the content, right? "Reasonable assertion" is weasel wording for "I think supernatural claims are more reasonable than unlikely natural ones".

If it could be reasonably asserted it could be reasonably rebutted.

No, it's about what would be required in order to do it, on a conceptual, procedural level. Not how 'reasonable' it is, but how possible it is.

Also, you would need to clarify the assertion. Are you asserting deity? Or a particular conceptualization of deity? What is the nature and character of the deity you are asserting? And what, exactly, are you asserting about this deity?

Whichever particular deity is being asserted at any given time. Since you're now asking the person who disagrees with the assertion to define that which is asserted, I can only assume you've totally lost your mind.

Nothing has been asserted. No assertion has been articulated. A poor example has been offered, and I responded to it as an example, not as an assertion.

If you don't even know what you're asserting, then how could anyone possibly rebut?

It is painfully clear that you don't understand why there's a problem with the following situation:

(Please leave out the insects if you want to continue the discussion.)

Person A makes a claim that they could support by providing a piece of information, while person B would be required to provide an entire account of the entire universe and beyond in order to disprove it. Person A thinks it reasonable for person B to carry a burden of proof under these impossible conditions, whilst not themselves meeting their own burden of proof.

If person A asserts a claim and presents his reasons for asserting it, and person B disagrees, he is bound to present his reasons for disagreeing. And the debate will follow in this manner, or it will end. No one is obliged to be omniscient. And no claim asserted based on this assumption should be considered a serious claim.

Which also makes it painfully clear that you're either mad, stupid or not interested in honest discussion of the subject.

Enough with the insults. If you have something of value to posit then do so. Otherwise I'm going to just ignore your posts from now on.
PureX
Posts: 1,530
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 11:11:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 2:35:53 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/4/2014 1:33:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Believe it or not, like it or not, negative claims require just as much evidence as positive ones. Although it is reasonable not to believe in fairies, to claim that there are none requires evidence. If none can be provided, too bad. All that means is that you cannot prove that there are no fairies, and therefore the claim "there are no fairies" is without justification. Degrees of confirmation =/= truth. BOP has nothing whatsoever to do with truth.

And if it is reasonable not to believe in fairies then it is reasonable to hold the position "I do not believe the statement that fairies exist is a true one".

But what is being asserted, and on what basis? Once we know that, we have something to rebut. And a reason to do so. Until that occurs, there is no debate. There's just two people who disagree but don't know exactly what it is they're disagreeing about, or why exactly they're disagreeing about it.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 11:18:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 9:28:40 PM, Ameliamk1 wrote:
The question has come up a lot recently of whether atheism is a positive statement that accordingly requires evidence to support. More accurately, it has been accused. If unable to provide evidence, the atheistic position is "incoherent", and is untenable.

So I would like to submit a formal response. The primary dispensement of BOP is based on what has already been established. There are cases where a negative position could be burdened with the BOP. For example, a theist offered a situation the other day where one would say "it is not raining", and thus be expected to prove this. The most pressing issue with this is that to prove it is not raining, one would merely have to look outside and observe that there was no rain; however, if water was coming down from the clouds, the statement would be false.

Whether something exists is quite different. The person who claims it is not raining holds as much BOP as the opposing position because it is accepted, established, and scientifically and empirically proven that rain exists, and it does fall from the clouds.

However, God is not observable in the same way. Because His existence was never proven in the first place, it is not therefore the imperative of atheists to disprove the existence of something that was never known to be there. To provide another example, one could say "deer don't exist", and the onus would be on them to say why not because deer are fully understood to exist, a fact that goes un-denied.

If someone were to ask whether unicorns walk the earth, hopefully everyone would say no. Why? Because that would be observable, and has yet to be seen. If unicorns occupy the realms of reality, then someone needs to get on that. Meanwhile, the example of denying that aliens exist is not in the same realm of thought. Because we as a species are incapable of seeing or proving aliens as of yet, saying they don't exist is not an intellectually valid statement.

Let me get to the point: God, who apparently loves us so much and centered creation around us, should be observable, and scientifically provable, and his apparent common interventions should be easily viewed. When this is the case, as it is with religion, lack of evidence can be evidence to the contrary; where evidence should be, there is none. God was never established, never observed in the realm where he would be expected to be seen. That is why theists hold the burden of proof, and atheists do not.


Feel free to respond or rebut below.

Either something lead you to a conclusion or it did not.

Attempting to avoid explaining that process, as if that just makes it the correct answer is the very definition of fallaciously shifting the burden of proof.

Both statements are fallacious:

You cannot disprove God, so he exists.

You cannot prove God, so he does not exist.

Unfortunately for atheists, Christians are explaining WHY they believe.

Atheists ... are coming up with stupider and stupider reasons not to explain why they believe there is no God ... but they are evidenced, rational, and correct anyway.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 12:00:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 11:18:41 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/3/2014 9:28:40 PM, Ameliamk1 wrote:
The question has come up a lot recently of whether atheism is a positive statement that accordingly requires evidence to support. More accurately, it has been accused. If unable to provide evidence, the atheistic position is "incoherent", and is untenable.

So I would like to submit a formal response. The primary dispensement of BOP is based on what has already been established. There are cases where a negative position could be burdened with the BOP. For example, a theist offered a situation the other day where one would say "it is not raining", and thus be expected to prove this. The most pressing issue with this is that to prove it is not raining, one would merely have to look outside and observe that there was no rain; however, if water was coming down from the clouds, the statement would be false.

Whether something exists is quite different. The person who claims it is not raining holds as much BOP as the opposing position because it is accepted, established, and scientifically and empirically proven that rain exists, and it does fall from the clouds.

However, God is not observable in the same way. Because His existence was never proven in the first place, it is not therefore the imperative of atheists to disprove the existence of something that was never known to be there. To provide another example, one could say "deer don't exist", and the onus would be on them to say why not because deer are fully understood to exist, a fact that goes un-denied.

If someone were to ask whether unicorns walk the earth, hopefully everyone would say no. Why? Because that would be observable, and has yet to be seen. If unicorns occupy the realms of reality, then someone needs to get on that. Meanwhile, the example of denying that aliens exist is not in the same realm of thought. Because we as a species are incapable of seeing or proving aliens as of yet, saying they don't exist is not an intellectually valid statement.

Let me get to the point: God, who apparently loves us so much and centered creation around us, should be observable, and scientifically provable, and his apparent common interventions should be easily viewed. When this is the case, as it is with religion, lack of evidence can be evidence to the contrary; where evidence should be, there is none. God was never established, never observed in the realm where he would be expected to be seen. That is why theists hold the burden of proof, and atheists do not.


Feel free to respond or rebut below.

Either something lead you to a conclusion or it did not.

Attempting to avoid explaining that process, as if that just makes it the correct answer is the very definition of fallaciously shifting the burden of proof.

Both statements are fallacious:

You cannot disprove God, so he exists.

You cannot prove God, so he does not exist.

Unfortunately for atheists, Christians are explaining WHY they believe.

Atheists ... are coming up with stupider and stupider reasons not to explain why they believe there is no God ... but they are evidenced, rational, and correct anyway.

Can you show any claim of a God. Does one live near to you. No claim no God.
Theists criticize atheists that atheists think that something can be by itself but theists are themselves in the beginning supposing that God is by himself. Next claim of theists that God is a personality is even more absurd. Firstly not every reason is a personality. A lot of things are formed from matter but is matter a personality ? It isnt. Theists also suppose that a God has free will. If God was personality or had free will, then earth would have formed in an instance. But evidence does not support this. Age of universe is 13.8 billion years while age of earth 4.5 billion years. Why would an all powerful god wait this much long. Clearly the idea of God is absurd. Only natural reasons explain such billion years.
Science does not say that there is no reason of existence. Science just says that the reasons are natural. I can't understand why theists want to call the reasons 'God' which is more like saying that atoms are God, since everything is composed of them.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 12:16:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 12:00:35 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/5/2014 11:18:41 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/3/2014 9:28:40 PM, Ameliamk1 wrote:
The question has come up a lot recently of whether atheism is a positive statement that accordingly requires evidence to support. More accurately, it has been accused. If unable to provide evidence, the atheistic position is "incoherent", and is untenable.

So I would like to submit a formal response. The primary dispensement of BOP is based on what has already been established. There are cases where a negative position could be burdened with the BOP. For example, a theist offered a situation the other day where one would say "it is not raining", and thus be expected to prove this. The most pressing issue with this is that to prove it is not raining, one would merely have to look outside and observe that there was no rain; however, if water was coming down from the clouds, the statement would be false.

Whether something exists is quite different. The person who claims it is not raining holds as much BOP as the opposing position because it is accepted, established, and scientifically and empirically proven that rain exists, and it does fall from the clouds.

However, God is not observable in the same way. Because His existence was never proven in the first place, it is not therefore the imperative of atheists to disprove the existence of something that was never known to be there. To provide another example, one could say "deer don't exist", and the onus would be on them to say why not because deer are fully understood to exist, a fact that goes un-denied.

If someone were to ask whether unicorns walk the earth, hopefully everyone would say no. Why? Because that would be observable, and has yet to be seen. If unicorns occupy the realms of reality, then someone needs to get on that. Meanwhile, the example of denying that aliens exist is not in the same realm of thought. Because we as a species are incapable of seeing or proving aliens as of yet, saying they don't exist is not an intellectually valid statement.

Let me get to the point: God, who apparently loves us so much and centered creation around us, should be observable, and scientifically provable, and his apparent common interventions should be easily viewed. When this is the case, as it is with religion, lack of evidence can be evidence to the contrary; where evidence should be, there is none. God was never established, never observed in the realm where he would be expected to be seen. That is why theists hold the burden of proof, and atheists do not.


Feel free to respond or rebut below.

Either something lead you to a conclusion or it did not.

Attempting to avoid explaining that process, as if that just makes it the correct answer is the very definition of fallaciously shifting the burden of proof.

Both statements are fallacious:

You cannot disprove God, so he exists.

You cannot prove God, so he does not exist.

Unfortunately for atheists, Christians are explaining WHY they believe.

Atheists ... are coming up with stupider and stupider reasons not to explain why they believe there is no God ... but they are evidenced, rational, and correct anyway.

Can you show any claim of a God. Does one live near to you. No claim no God.
Theists criticize atheists that atheists think that something can be by itself but theists are themselves in the beginning supposing that God is by himself. Next claim of theists that God is a personality is even more absurd. Firstly not every reason is a personality. A lot of things are formed from matter but is matter a personality ? It isnt. Theists also suppose that a God has free will. If God was personality or had free will, then earth would have formed in an instance. But evidence does not support this. Age of universe is 13.8 billion years while age of earth 4.5 billion years. Why would an all powerful god wait this much long. Clearly the idea of God is absurd. Only natural reasons explain such billion years.
Science does not say that there is no reason of existence. Science just says that the reasons are natural. I can't understand why theists want to call the reasons 'God' which is more like saying that atoms are God, since everything is composed of them.

Apologetics.

You should read it - as its the very thing you are demanding. It also happens to be the thing that you atheists claim to be experts about - you know religion.

But you tell me, what exactly is the thing that Created the Universe made out of? Hmmm ... because whatever that thing was, is probably what God is made of.

And no, not everything is made of atoms. Quarks, for example, are component parts of atoms and are thus not made of atoms are they? Energy is not made of atoms either is it? That whole matter/energy conversion thing is tough - and as the universe popped into existence as a tiny super dense mass of PURE ENERGY - no matter created yet - I think you can see where actually looking at a problem set to solve it ... rather than confirm our bigoted religious preconceptions ... might lead you to not strangle actual science ... just so you can deny God.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 12:24:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 12:16:55 PM, neutral wrote:
At 6/5/2014 12:00:35 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/5/2014 11:18:41 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/3/2014 9:28:40 PM, Ameliamk1 wrote:
The question has come up a lot recently of whether atheism is a positive statement that accordingly requires evidence to support. More accurately, it has been accused. If unable to provide evidence, the atheistic position is "incoherent", and is untenable.

So I would like to submit a formal response. The primary dispensement of BOP is based on what has already been established. There are cases where a negative position could be burdened with the BOP. For example, a theist offered a situation the other day where one would say "it is not raining", and thus be expected to prove this. The most pressing issue with this is that to prove it is not raining, one would merely have to look outside and observe that there was no rain; however, if water was coming down from the clouds, the statement would be false.

Whether something exists is quite different. The person who claims it is not raining holds as much BOP as the opposing position because it is accepted, established, and scientifically and empirically proven that rain exists, and it does fall from the clouds.

However, God is not observable in the same way. Because His existence was never proven in the first place, it is not therefore the imperative of atheists to disprove the existence of something that was never known to be there. To provide another example, one could say "deer don't exist", and the onus would be on them to say why not because deer are fully understood to exist, a fact that goes un-denied.

If someone were to ask whether unicorns walk the earth, hopefully everyone would say no. Why? Because that would be observable, and has yet to be seen. If unicorns occupy the realms of reality, then someone needs to get on that. Meanwhile, the example of denying that aliens exist is not in the same realm of thought. Because we as a species are incapable of seeing or proving aliens as of yet, saying they don't exist is not an intellectually valid statement.

Let me get to the point: God, who apparently loves us so much and centered creation around us, should be observable, and scientifically provable, and his apparent common interventions should be easily viewed. When this is the case, as it is with religion, lack of evidence can be evidence to the contrary; where evidence should be, there is none. God was never established, never observed in the realm where he would be expected to be seen. That is why theists hold the burden of proof, and atheists do not.


Feel free to respond or rebut below.

Either something lead you to a conclusion or it did not.

Attempting to avoid explaining that process, as if that just makes it the correct answer is the very definition of fallaciously shifting the burden of proof.

Both statements are fallacious:

You cannot disprove God, so he exists.

You cannot prove God, so he does not exist.

Unfortunately for atheists, Christians are explaining WHY they believe.

Atheists ... are coming up with stupider and stupider reasons not to explain why they believe there is no God ... but they are evidenced, rational, and correct anyway.

Can you show any claim of a God. Does one live near to you. No claim no God.
Theists criticize atheists that atheists think that something can be by itself but theists are themselves in the beginning supposing that God is by himself. Next claim of theists that God is a personality is even more absurd. Firstly not every reason is a personality. A lot of things are formed from matter but is matter a personality ? It isnt. Theists also suppose that a God has free will. If God was personality or had free will, then earth would have formed in an instance. But evidence does not support this. Age of universe is 13.8 billion years while age of earth 4.5 billion years. Why would an all powerful god wait this much long. Clearly the idea of God is absurd. Only natural reasons explain such billion years.
Science does not say that there is no reason of existence. Science just says that the reasons are natural. I can't understand why theists want to call the reasons 'God' which is more like saying that atoms are God, since everything is composed of them.

Apologetics.

You should read it - as its the very thing you are demanding. It also happens to be the thing that you atheists claim to be experts about - you know religion.

But you tell me, what exactly is the thing that Created the Universe made out of? Hmmm ... because whatever that thing was, is probably what God is made of.

And no, not everything is made of atoms. Quarks, for example, are component parts of atoms and are thus not made of atoms are they? Energy is not made of atoms either is it? That whole matter/energy conversion thing is tough - and as the universe popped into existence as a tiny super dense mass of PURE ENERGY - no matter created yet - I think you can see where actually looking at a problem set to solve it ... rather than confirm our bigoted religious preconceptions ... might lead you to not strangle actual science ... just so you can deny God.

Religions claimed that God is a form of energy. But as you know energy does not have any free will and is not capable of intelligent design. Calling energy 'God' is just absurd. Energy is as natural as we are. Nothing supernatural about it.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 12:28:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 12:00:35 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/5/2014 11:18:41 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/3/2014 9:28:40 PM, Ameliamk1 wrote:
The question has come up a lot recently of whether atheism is a positive statement that accordingly requires evidence to support. More accurately, it has been accused. If unable to provide evidence, the atheistic position is "incoherent", and is untenable.

So I would like to submit a formal response. The primary dispensement of BOP is based on what has already been established. There are cases where a negative position could be burdened with the BOP. For example, a theist offered a situation the other day where one would say "it is not raining", and thus be expected to prove this. The most pressing issue with this is that to prove it is not raining, one would merely have to look outside and observe that there was no rain; however, if water was coming down from the clouds, the statement would be false.

Whether something exists is quite different. The person who claims it is not raining holds as much BOP as the opposing position because it is accepted, established, and scientifically and empirically proven that rain exists, and it does fall from the clouds.

However, God is not observable in the same way. Because His existence was never proven in the first place, it is not therefore the imperative of atheists to disprove the existence of something that was never known to be there. To provide another example, one could say "deer don't exist", and the onus would be on them to say why not because deer are fully understood to exist, a fact that goes un-denied.

If someone were to ask whether unicorns walk the earth, hopefully everyone would say no. Why? Because that would be observable, and has yet to be seen. If unicorns occupy the realms of reality, then someone needs to get on that. Meanwhile, the example of denying that aliens exist is not in the same realm of thought. Because we as a species are incapable of seeing or proving aliens as of yet, saying they don't exist is not an intellectually valid statement.

Let me get to the point: God, who apparently loves us so much and centered creation around us, should be observable, and scientifically provable, and his apparent common interventions should be easily viewed. When this is the case, as it is with religion, lack of evidence can be evidence to the contrary; where evidence should be, there is none. God was never established, never observed in the realm where he would be expected to be seen. That is why theists hold the burden of proof, and atheists do not.


Feel free to respond or rebut below.

Either something lead you to a conclusion or it did not.

Attempting to avoid explaining that process, as if that just makes it the correct answer is the very definition of fallaciously shifting the burden of proof.

Both statements are fallacious:

You cannot disprove God, so he exists.

You cannot prove God, so he does not exist.

Unfortunately for atheists, Christians are explaining WHY they believe.

Atheists ... are coming up with stupider and stupider reasons not to explain why they believe there is no God ... but they are evidenced, rational, and correct anyway.

Can you show any claim of a God. Does one live near to you. No claim no God.
Theists criticize atheists that atheists think that something can be by itself but theists are themselves in the beginning supposing that God is by himself. Next claim of theists that God is a personality is even more absurd. Firstly not every reason is a personality. A lot of things are formed from matter but is matter a personality ? It isnt. Theists also suppose that a God has free will. If God was personality or had free will, then earth would have formed in an instance. But evidence does not support this. Age of universe is 13.8 billion years while age of earth 4.5 billion years. Why would an all powerful god wait this much long. Clearly the idea of God is absurd. Only natural reasons explain such billion years.
Science does not say that there is no reason of existence. Science just says that the reasons are natural. I can't understand why theists want to call the reasons 'God' which is more like saying that atoms are God, since everything is composed of them.

Can you show any claim...

Your definition of God is strange. Someone you can see and visit nextdoor?
Can you provide your definition of God?

Theists criticize atheists that...

This is logic. There have to be an original uncaused caused that exists based on it's own necessity. The cause is either intelligent or not. Theists believe the cause to be intelligent which makes much more sense than a random cause.

Next claim of theists that...

Duh! God is beyond space and time, thus he cannot be physical or material. Since he is potent, then that means he is personal.

Theists also suppose that a God...

Do I see argument from ignorance and personal incredibility?
If you are claiming God is supposed to do this and that, then that is equivalent to claiming to be omniscient and infinitely wise. So your only option is to logically prove that God MUST create a young universe with no. Go ahead.

Also, energy is not made from atoms. Thoughts are not made from atoms.

Then there is scientism's science of the gaps. "The reasons are material, science just did not find them yet". SMH.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 12:31:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/3/2014 9:28:40 PM, Ameliamk1 wrote:
The question has come up a lot recently of whether atheism is a positive statement that accordingly requires evidence to support. More accurately, it has been accused. If unable to provide evidence, the atheistic position is "incoherent", and is untenable.

So I would like to submit a formal response. The primary dispensement of BOP is based on what has already been established. There are cases where a negative position could be burdened with the BOP. For example, a theist offered a situation the other day where one would say "it is not raining", and thus be expected to prove this. The most pressing issue with this is that to prove it is not raining, one would merely have to look outside and observe that there was no rain; however, if water was coming down from the clouds, the statement would be false.

Whether something exists is quite different. The person who claims it is not raining holds as much BOP as the opposing position because it is accepted, established, and scientifically and empirically proven that rain exists, and it does fall from the clouds.

However, God is not observable in the same way. Because His existence was never proven in the first place, it is not therefore the imperative of atheists to disprove the existence of something that was never known to be there. To provide another example, one could say "deer don't exist", and the onus would be on them to say why not because deer are fully understood to exist, a fact that goes un-denied.

If someone were to ask whether unicorns walk the earth, hopefully everyone would say no. Why? Because that would be observable, and has yet to be seen. If unicorns occupy the realms of reality, then someone needs to get on that. Meanwhile, the example of denying that aliens exist is not in the same realm of thought. Because we as a species are incapable of seeing or proving aliens as of yet, saying they don't exist is not an intellectually valid statement.

Let me get to the point: God, who apparently loves us so much and centered creation around us, should be observable, and scientifically provable, and his apparent common interventions should be easily viewed. When this is the case, as it is with religion, lack of evidence can be evidence to the contrary; where evidence should be, there is none. God was never established, never observed in the realm where he would be expected to be seen. That is why theists hold the burden of proof, and atheists do not.


Feel free to respond or rebut below.

Personally, I do not hold to the position of "A god does not exist." However, I do hold to the statement: "I do not believe that a god exists." While I am no expert on technical and applied logic, I am aware that you are claiming knowledge on a subject by stating with certainty the existence (or not) of something. I believe that knowledge should be defended, should you claim to posses it.

To the contrary, my statement that I hold to does not claim knowledge, only belief.

The distinction is quite big, but the two phrases are so similar they are sometimes used interchangeably, which can be devastating.

So, it has to come down to gnosticism vs agnosticism on the burden of proof, at least to me. Do you claim knowledge on a subject? If you do, defend that knowledge!

Those are just my thoughts.

Adieu!
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 1:01:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 10:59:48 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 6/5/2014 9:14:21 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/5/2014 6:04:43 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
A negative claim puts a burden of proof just like a positive claim.

Fairies can be falsified via. Modus tollens (Denying the consequence), which is more or less similar to the scientific method:

1- If fairies exist, it is fairly (pun may or may not be intended) likely that there would be reasonably clear evidence depicting their existence (genuine, distinguishable from bugs, captured in a jar, etc...).
2- There are no clear evidence depicting their existence.
c: Fairies probably do not exist.

That is not modus tollens.
Your If-Then statement invokes probability. If A, then p chance of B.
But the fact that we haven't found evidence does not negate that there is still a p chance of B, we just made simply be outside that chance. As such, we can draw no conclusion about A, at least not using modus tollens.

You'd be better of trying for a Bayesian analysis.

Modus tollens is the opposite of affirming the consequence:

If p, then q
is q
therefore, p

We are talking about inductive logic that depends on human senses and subjectivity. Of course it can't absolutely prove something. However, the probability spoken about allows enough accuracy for us to assume it to be true until further evidence.

It's not about it being proven absolutely, it's about the fact that your presented logic is COMPLETLEY invalid. It doesn't follow. This is trivially easy to demonstrate by choosing something different:

If I flip a coin, there is a 50 percent chance it will land on heads.
It didn't land on heads.
Therefore there is a 50 percent chance I didn't flip the coin.

That's your logic, basically and it's clearly absurd.

That is why scientific hypothesis requires many replications in order to increase the probability of the accuracy before it becomes a theory in which we assume it to be true.

Yes, but it doesn't use the logic you presented.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 1:20:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 12:24:16 PM, debateuser wrote:


Religions claimed that God is a form of energy. But as you know energy does not have any free will and is not capable of intelligent design. Calling energy 'God' is just absurd. Energy is as natural as we are. Nothing supernatural about it.

We have made no claims about what God is made of, and in fact, I believe I was pretty clear that it probably similar to whatever made the universe. What is equally clear is that God does not have to be made of atoms, because even atoms are made of something else ... and matter and energy can convert (and regularly do).

Leave to another brain addled bigot of an atheist to not even be able to keep up with an actual science discussion ... so grizzled with hatred for religion and religious people we'll just fundamentally keep getting religious claims wrong and be so full of hatred and dismay about a different opinion that we will work ourselves into an emotional frenzy that leaves us incapable of following along in a civil discussion.

Why again are so many atheists attracted to religion forums? A subject that not only know next to nothing about in most cases, but seem predisposed to continually get wrong anyway.

Maybe we can set some web permissions that leaves atheists in a read only status until they have met certain educational prerequisites about basic religious claims and practices (like really, we don't support slavery) before they are allowed to ACTUALLY contribute to the discussions they seem singularly incapable of having.

All the religious people, despite our apparent propensity to kill one another for no particular reason, seem capable of discussing our faith lil adults. Atheists? Seem to be at war with everyone ... including their own sense of logic.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 3:15:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is ridiculous to assert that you can make a claim and not be expected to support it in some way.

That is just asinine.

Being a negative claim or a positive claim doe snot mean you do not have onus.

If a claim is unprovable and unfalsifiable what kind of claim is that? It is meaningless. It doesn't mean anything to anyone, it's an opinion with no support possible, and no counter sufficient.

If Atheist want to prove their claim, they have to show God's existence is not coherent with reality. It is impossible in this reality.

Talk of a flying spaghetti monster and pink unicorn all ask for a suspension of belief. The Atheist is asking the Theist to ignore aerodynamics to assume a flying spaghetti monster lives. And they KNOW full well that that would be the response by a Theist.

So instead of wasting time and going through 500 made up monsters, elf, and anthropomorphic gods, and sky daddies, Why doesn't an Atheist save us the effort and time and just make a case for how a god is impossible to exist in our reality based on what we know currently of our reality.

We all logically assume that there is one reality. We know from mental disorders and historical references that people as a society, and people as individuals all can perceive this one reality differently. We all seem to know that the best thing for us to do is have our perceptions match with the reality as much as possible.

negative or positive claims describe structure.
Onus or burden of proof describe support for a claim
Every claim has onus when challenged.

Default is a reference to a Null hypothesis. Which is only of use when compared to an alternate hypothesis. It is a tool for investigation of whether a claim has sufficient explanatory value to describe a relationship between 2 events. The null or default hypothesis is that a relationship does not exist. Such as is the case in statistics, "Correlation does not imply causation".

Often Atheist like to liken burden of proof to court. In the US a person is innocent till proven guilty, so the prosecutor has burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt the accused is likely guilty.

The opposite is the case in courts where the defendant is guilty till proven innocent.

So there is a legal burden of proof that does NOT apply to debate. Just goes to show the inconsistent reasoning of Atheist. When it supports them they want to look at BOP interpreted by law, BUT law identifies eye witness account and expert testimony, both of which Atheist ignore when it comes to claims of seeing or knowing God.

Atheist look for science as the best method for finding truth and yet ignore all other methods. Decision making processes for every day things are not scientific method.

To argue Atheist can make a claim and not have onus, is an appeal to ignorance. http://en.wikipedia.org...